The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

 

494.   WILLIAM AUSTIN, Unlawfully committing wilful and corrupt perjury at   Westminster County Court.

MR. LEVER Prosecuted, and MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and MOSES

Defended.

  JOHN WESTAWAY . I am an usher at Westminster County Court—I

produce office copies of the proceedings in "Lynch v. Austin," heard on 7th December, 1892; of the proceedings in another action between the same parties, heard on 15th February, 1893, and of the nonsuit granted in the first action of 7th December—I also produce a copy of the plaint in a third action, between the same parties, issued on 6th February, 1893—that action stands adjourned, I believe—these are the particulars—these are the plaint notes and particulars in the first and second actions—on 15th February, 1893, when the second action was tried, Judge Bayley was the judge—I administered the oath to the prisoner.

Cross-examined. The original plaint note of the first action was issued on 8th November, and the action was tried on 7th December, 1892 (In the original particulars in the first action there was claimed eleven weeks rent, short 4s. 6d. date 29th September, 1892, for warehouse 66, Drury Lane, at 10s. a week; in the office copy the date was omitted, and warehouses stood in place of warehouse. In the second plaint note and particulars the claim was: 1891, December 5th, to 1892, February 20th—eleven weeks' rent of shop and parlour, situate at 66, Drury Lane, at 10s. per week; by cash on account, 3s. 6d.—£5 6s. 6d.).

Re-examined. The total amount claimed by the particulars of the first and second actions was 4s. 6s. 6d., but in the first action 4s. 6d. is allowed, and in the second action 3s. 6d.

  WILLIAM LYNCH . I live at 48, Hillfield Road, West Hampstead, and for the last thirty-five years I have been owner of property in the City of London—I am of no occupation, and I collect my own rents—I have owned 64, 65, and 66, Drury Lane, at ail times material to this case—at 64 there is a basement—at 66 there is an archway going through 66 from Drury Lane to the back—part of what would otherwise have been shop and parlour is the archway—there is a shop and parlour on the right-hand side of the archway which goes under the rest of the house—at the back of 64, 65, and 66 is a yard, and across the yard is a line of warehouses—the prisoner had been my tenant for about two years of the warehouse at the back of 63, across the yard, at 4s. 6d. a week rent, up to 3rd December, 1891, when there was a fire at that warehouse—after the fire, the first time I was at 66, Drury Lane, was 6th December, Saturday, at twelve o'clock; that was my usual time for coming to collect rents—I had not heard of the fire till I arrived there—I then saw the prisoner in the arch or gateway—Guinn, who worked for me at whitewashing, papering, and so on, was there too—the prisoner said, "There has been a fire; can you give me other premises?"—I pointed to the shop and parlour of 66, and told him the rent was 14s. a week, but on account of his having the fire, for the time being he should have it for 10s. a week—I sent Guinn for the keys, and Mrs. Elizabeth Beach, my caretaker, who lives at 65, brought the two keys—one of them opened the front shop door of the house into Drury Lane, and the other opened the parlour door into the archway—I unlocked the parlour door in the archway and went in with Austin, who said it would suit him, and I handed him the keys there and then—the shop and parlour had been empty for some time; there was nothing but a few old fixtures in them, no goods—the prisoner then had possession, and I walked away to attend to other business—after that I was on the premises daily except Sundays—I often saw the prisoner and some of his men in the shop and parlour—he is a wholesale fruit and

vegetable salesman in the orange market at Covent Garden, and has been so for some time—he had a large stand in the market—I have seen oranges and lemons in the parlour; they were mostly in baskets and boxes which I could not see inside of—I have seen him sorting them—I have seen goods taken out of the premises by men whom I have seen employed by him at his stand—he continued tenant till 20th February, 1892—the warehouse at the back, where the fire had occurred, was reconstructed in January—this is a little book I kept in my pocket to put down accounts of what I received and the date—it is a rough book I have with me when I collect my rents—on 5th December I had it with me, and at that time I made an entry respecting the tenancy—I have an entry on January 18th, 1892, when after the reconstruction he took back his own warehouse and another one at 8s. 3d. per week—the entry is, "Austin commenced 8s. 3d—that refers to the two warehouses he took, through the yard at the back—from 18th January he had, besides the shop and parlour, the two warehouses—one warehouse was 4s. 6d. and the other 3s. 9d. a week—between December 3rd and January 18th he had no warehouse, nothing but the shop and parlour—on February 1st he took the basement at 64 at 1s. 9d. per week—I made the entry in my rough book on December 5th when I was standing in the gateway, and when the prisoner took the shop and parlour—I wrote it across the page in a hurry, I was upset with the fire—on 20th February, 1892, the tenancy came to an end—I went to see the prisoner, who was in the orange market, and he laid the keys on his desk, and said he had cleared all out—Mrs. Beach was there at the time—I don't know whether she could hear what was said, as I was inside his stand, but she could see him putting the keys down and my taking them up—two of his men were also there—I know them by sight, not by name—he gave no notice to quit the shop and parlour; it was not required, because I wished him to give them up as soon as he could for another tenant—before that I had called on him once or twice to know how soon he was going to clear out—I only called on him quarterly for the rent—I made several applications for the rent of the shop and parlour—the first time was when I took the keys from him—he said he would pay me in a week—he did not say he had not occupied the shop or parlour, or anything of that kind—I collected the rent for the warehouses on the quarter day, but I asked for the rent of the shop and parlour, as the tenancy was at an end—I next applied for that rent in a week's time—I did not get it, and I got no denial of the occupation—I should think I have applied quite half a dozen times for that rent—I had no denial of the occupation—when I brought the first action I was legally advised—on 8th November Austin was still tenant for the basement and two warehouses—the plaint was for eleven weeks at 10s. a week, less 4s. 6d., £5 6s. 6d.—I made a mistake in a shilling; the 4s. 6d. should have been 3s. 6d.—on paying a cheque for £4 16s. 3d. it was 3s. 6d. in excess—on 2nd April, 1892, he paid £4 16s. 3d., and it was really 3s. 3d., but he put down 3d., and that made 3s. 6d.—the £4 16s. 3d. was for the rent of the other premises—the particulars in that action state that it is "rent for warehouses"—as the shop and parlour were used for a warehouse, I termed it "warehouses," but the action was really for the shop and parlour—the date when the rent is stated to be due is

29th September—I made the particulars out myself—I put the 29th September because the rent was not paid, and that. was the time I sent the account in—he gave me the keys on the 20th February, and that was the date up to which I claimed rent—September 29th was the last time I applied for the money—I consider it was due on September 29th; that was my only reason for putting that date—I gave my evidence in that action on the 7th December—my evidence was directed to the shop and parlour, and I then gave the dates as from 5th December, 1891, to 20th February, 1892—at the County Court I only appeared myself, and did not call other witnesses—I was met by the prisoner's evidence that he had never occupied the premises—that same morning I consulted Mr. Marriott, my solicitor, and in consequence of that consultation the second action was brought on 15th February this year—I gave evidence, and called Mrs. Beach as a witness to the tenancy—I saw the oath administered to the prisoner, and heard his evidence—Mr. Barnett appeared for him then—the prisoner stated on oath that he never had the shop and parlour, and never was in the place; he simply repudiated the occupation—he repeated a second time that he never had the place, and never was in it, and said, "I know nothing about the place"—I don't remember his speaking about the keys; I don't think the keys were mentioned—he said that Mrs. Beach was living there at the time, and that I was living there with her—I never lived at the place in my life; there were only bare boards to sleep on—he said that Clifton Smith was my tenant, and that he had recommended him to me, and that it was to him I gave the keys—I don't know Clifton Smith—he gave evidence at the Police-court; I had never seen him before—Hoare, who represented himself as Smith's manager, gave evidence at the Police court—I had seen him on the prisoner's stand very often; I did not know his name—I never saw him at 66, Drury Lane.

Cross-examined. I did not ask for the rent till he gave up possession on 20th February; he promised to pay within a week—I am quite sure I mentioned the rent on that day—Mrs. Beach could see what went on—I met her going along, and said I was going for the keys because I wished to give them up to her, and she went through the market with me—I said at the Police-court, "I first applied for the rent of the shop and parlour about 26th March, 1892"—I applied again on that date—I do not remember saying "first" at the Police-court—Q. You said then, "He asked me to call again in a week, after the 26th March," is that true?—A. I asked him on 26th March, but not for the first time—this first set of particulars is in my writing—I prepared them the same day as I took out the summons, 8th November—I described the shop and parlour as warehouses—I put eleven weeks due 29th September, 1892, because it was not paid, and was due—the shop and parlour were used at a warehouse; warehouses would be a proper description—on 19th November, 1892, the prisoner gave up his further warehouses, and ceased altogether to be my tenant—the shop and parlour were owing for on 24th June; £5 6s. 6d.; I said so at the County Court on 7th December—I did not say that he had not given up the premises in respect of which I was sueing when I took out the plaint note—I did not say, in cross-examination, that the eleven weeks I sued for occurred immediately prior to 29th September—I believe I was asked the question once—I

said it was a weekly tenancy; there was no agreement—in the second action Mr. Marriott, the solicitor, appeared for me—it was not exactly one of my objects in bringing the second action to found a prosecution for perjury—Mr. Marriott advised me, as I had put warehouses instead of shop and parlour, to take a second action—I was acting entirely under his advice—I did not wish the prisoner to commit perjury, but I intended if he did commit perjury again, that was, if he told the same story, I should punish him for it—I told that to Mr. Marriott—on 7th December Mrs. Beach was outside the Court, but I was not aware of it till afterwards—the 4s. 6d. in the particulars was a clerical error—in paying me a cheque on 29th April for £4 16s. 3d. the prisoner paid me 3s. 3d. too much, and he put down 3d. more to make it 3s. 6d., which I allowed him off the £5 108.—the only mistake I have made about that matter was in putting down 48. 6d. instead of 3s. 6d.—I left the information against the prisoner, sworn on 21st February, 1893, in Mr. Marriott's hands—I gave information for a warrant by my solicitor's advice—I stated to the Magistrate that he was likely to run away—I had information to that effect—that was why he was arrested on a warrant—when I was examined in February, 1893, I said, "About April, 1892, the defendant paid a cheque for £4 16s. 3d. in respect of the March quarter's rent of two warehouses and basement; it was 3s. 6d. too much; I held it and gave him credit for it in respect of the shop and parlour"—I was then cross-examined about a cheque for £2 18s. 6d. which I had had from the prisoner—three or four cheques were produced at the County Court—the one for £2 18s. 6d. was not shown to me, nor produced there—I did not then say, with regard to that cheque, that £2 15s. was applicable to the rent for other premises, and the balance, 3s. 6d., I retained in respect of the shop and parlour—the cheque for £4 16s. 3d. would be made up of rents for the warehouse and basement from 18th January, 1892—from 18th January to 25th March (quarter day) at 4s. 6d. would be £2 5s.; the ware house at 3s. 9d. between the same dates would be £1 17s. 6d.; the basement from 1st February, 1892, to 25th March would be 14s., and that amounts in all to £4 16s. 6d., but I allowed the 3s. 6d. for cleaning up the place, and when I made that allowance it was overpaid—I made an allowance of a fortnight's rent, at 1s. 9d. a week, for his man cleaning the basement up—when I called on 26th March for the rent of the whole premises the prisoner had paid the man—I allowed the 3s. 6d. out of the rent—I did not give him the 3s. 6d. because he said he had paid his man for cleaning up the place, and I said I would allow him a fortnight's rent of the place—this arrangement was made on 26th March, directly after I took his cheque—if the cheque is dated the 2nd April it was then—I did not look at the date of the cheque—I should have said it was 2nd April instead of 26th March—I called there on 26th March, and I fancy he must have postdated the cheque; I did not notice it at the time—it is quite right that he put down threepence to make up the £4 16s. 6d.—I believe this arrangement was come to on 26th March, and that although the cheque was dated 2nd April, 1892, it was a postdated cheque given to me on 26th March—I may have said on 28th February, "The tenancy came to an end on 20th February, 1892; he then went back to his old warehouse, which had been by that time reconstructed. On the same day he took another of the four warehouses; about a fortnight after he took the

bottom part of the basement of 64, Drury Lane, bringing the rent of the warehouses and basement up to the former rent of 10s. a week"—the arrangement between the prisoner and myself was that when the warehouse was reconstructed he was to give up the shop and parlour without notice, and go back to the warehouse—I did not understand that I was saying that the warehouses at 4s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. were not, in fact, taken possession of by the prisoner until 20th February, when he gave up the shop and parlour; I gave the proper date the 18th January—when I was re-examined a week afterwards I said, "I made a mistake in my examination-in-chief in the absence of my book; it was on the 8th January, 1892, that this additional warehouse at the back of 66, Drury Lane, was taken, but he had nothing to do with the shop and parlour from that date, 18th January, 1892; the rent of the warehouses was 8s. 3d. a. week"—he took the shop and parlour as temporary premises in consequence of the fire—he stayed on in the shop and parlour after the warehouse was reconstructed, because he had not emptied the place, which was filled with baskets, and boxes, and stock—he gave no reason at all for staying on, and I did not know and cannot explain why he remained, unless it was that he wanted to empty it—Mr. Barnett asked me at-the Police-court on 28th February if I had a book or entry of any kind which would corroborate my story—I had no book with me then—I could not find this at the time; next time I appeared I had it—I was not sure I could find this book on 28th February—it is an old book—I said, "I have got a memorandum of it in an old book, but I am not sure whether I can find it"—when I gave evidence on December 7th, 1892, at the County Court, I made no reference to the book, nor did I to my knowledge on 15th February, 1893, when I gave evidence—I believe I mentioned to Mr. Marriott that I had a book after the first action—I will not swear it—I looked for the book before the second action; I could not find it, and I searched for it again before the Police-court proceedings—I found it about one o'clock on the morning after coming back from the Police-court, in a drawer that had not been opened for some time—I don't think I mentioned the existence of the book or the entries in it at either of the County Court trials—I had looked several times for it—I made this entry of 5th December at the time—the sheet was filled up at the time I am certain—the entries of 7th and 14th December were added afterwards; they refer to private affairs—I made additions to the book a fortnight or three weeks afterwards, it might have been,—Q. The dates in that book are not reliable as showing the days on which the occurrences happened?—A. They are not reliable in the way you put it—when I wrote this entry across this book the entries were there but not the dates, which were put afterwards—every entry on that sheet, except the dates, was made at the time the memorandum was written across it, and the dates of December 7th and 14th must have been written some fortnight or three weeks afterwards—I could not swear to a day; they were put in afterwards, after the entry which purports to relate to the taking of these premises—this entry was made on the 5th December; I suppose the pencil which made it was darker than those making the other entries—I swear that the entries of December 7th and 14th were not made at the same time as the dates opposite to them—I remember it because of Bonomy's name being there, and he wished to give up

his premises at that date—I found this book in one of a chest of drawers in my bedroom—I put different things in it—the drawers are not kept locked—I have in them several other books, and clothes; I had not worn the clothes for a very long while; they were my regimental suit when I was in the Volunteers—the other drawers are in daily use—I don't suppose I had looked in the drawers for twelve months—I looked through the drawers I usually used for this book before I went to the County Court the second time—I did not look in this particular drawer because I considered that there was nothing but this suit of regimentals in it—I looked in every drawer of this chest except the one where the book was, and I did not look there because I did not dream of its being there—I thought the book was destroyed all the time I was looking for it, and until I found it—I am quite sure of that—I found it after I was before the Magistrate—I could not swear it was the day after—when Mr. Barnett asked me at the Police-court I said, "I made a note at the time of the tenancy, which note is filed at my home"—that is correct, but I could not find the note, it is destroyed; it was on the file—it is a different note, and was on a piece of paper; I could not find that, but I produce the book—I was thinking of the bit of paper at the time—I did mention to my solicitor before going to Court that I had not only a book but a further memorandum on a file; I did not think of it—I made the second memorandum not under the archway but when I got home, and I filed it—the whole file has gone; I suppose I burnt it—I was collecting some rents in December—I collected quite half the number on the next leaf of the book—there is no date to that because I don't usually date that book; there are dates in it—the date of the 14th does not refer to that leaf I pointed out—in this entry 10s. is crossed out and 8s. 3d. written over it; it was a mistake—it is a rather black pencil, but it was done at the time—pencils do not always mark alike—the 10s. apparently came there by mistake—the 8s. 3d. is a genuine and contemporaneous entry—10s. was put down by mistake on 18th January and crossed out—no doubt I was thinking of 10s. for the shop, and then crossed it out directly and put 8s. 3d.—the 10s. does work out at exactly the rental that afterwards occurred—the entry on 1st February, 1892, of 1s. 9d. must have been made on the date it appears in the book, when he took the other warehouse—Mrs. Beach is only called Mrs. Lynch as a joke; she has been so called.

Re-examined. As to the £4 16s. 3d. cheque, £4 16s. 6d. was due in respect of two warehouses, £2 5s. and £1 17s. 6d., and the basement 14s. on 25th March, 1892—I believe the cheque of 2nd April was given me on 26th March, but I cannot pledge my oath—he gave me the cheque and 3d.—I should not enter when I received a cheque—I have in this other book that I received two cheques on that date, but only one from the prisoner, £1 168. 3d.—it was after March 25th—the first date in the book is March 28th, 1892—an entry of March 25th comes after March 28th, because it was a quarter day cheque, but was not paid on the quarter day—the top entry was made on 28th March, and I should say all of them were—I should not put down the credit of 3s. 3d.—the 28th must have been on Monday—I did not enter it for any date particularly—it was paid after quarter day—I have received three cheques of £2 18s. 6d. from the prisoner—the first was after June 24th, 1891, and was for

thirteen weeks' rent at 4s. 6d.—the next was for the same rent, after September 29th, 1891, and the last was for the same rent to December 25th—in none of those cases was £2 15s. due, leaving 3s. 6d. in excess—I received no other cheque of £2 18s. 6d.—this is a rough memorandum book, in which I put down at the time the amount, and not the date—the 7th December was the date Mr. Bonomy gave notice, and his time was up on December 14th—I have two or three pencils at the present time in my pocket, and do not always carry the same one—on January 18th the prisoner had given up the shop and parlour—on the first hearing I believe I said the premises were reconstructed on 20th February; at the next hearing I corrected that—I never had any claim against the prisoner for eleven weeks' rent except in respect to the shop and parlour.

  GEORGE WELCH . I am timekeeper at Drury Lane Theatre, and live on the first floor, 66, Drury Lane, over the shop and parlour—I have been there fourteen years—I leave in the morning at seven or nine—if I leave at seven I return to breakfast, and at one, if work permits; then I go back and leave off work at seven, or five or six; we work overtime if busy—I saw Clifton Smith at the Police-court—I never saw him in or about the shop and parlour—I saw Hoare at the Police-court—I did not know him; I never saw him in or near the shop and parlour—I might have seen him about sixteen years ago—I know the prisoner by his being on the premises; after the fire I thought he owned the shop, because his property was there—I never saw him there, but I thought it was his property by the baskets and things being marked "Austin," and I saw the damaged goods front the fire—I saw the burnt warehouse cleared out, and the baskets and things were placed in the shop, and some in the gateway—I concluded he was the tenant—besides the damaged goods I saw oranges and lemons there, packed in the usual way—they were Spanish and Italian goods, the same sort as the prisoner was selling—it was a few weeks after the fire that I saw his things in the shop and parlour; his name was painted round the baskets, some of which were full.

Cross-examined. I was first spoken to about this matter eight or nine weeks ago—the archway was pretty full after the firs, when they were bringing the goods through; that was the only way of getting them out of the damaged warehouse—there was great confusion at the time of the fire with the salvage men, the police, and others.

Re-examined. I did not know anything about the prisoner's business in the market, but I knew the men who came there, from being in the market myself previously—I don't know by whom the men were employed that I saw about the gateway.

  ELIZABETH BEACH . I am a widow—I lived at 65, Drury Lane, in December, 1891, and afterwards—I occupied the shop and parlour of 68 at the time the prisoner was there, and a little while afterwards—I went to the first floor of 64 because Mr. Lynch let the shop and parlour—I move about from place to place as a place becomes vacant—I have never occupied the shop and parlour at 66, Drury Lane—Mr. Lynch has never occupied it to my knowledge—I remember the fire on 3rd December, 1891, at the back warehouse—a day or two afterwards I saw Lynch, on Saturday, 5th December, about mid-day—he generally came between twelve and one—I saw him in the gateway with the prisoner—Guinn came to me for the keys of the shop and parlour of 66, on the right-hand side of

the archway—I went and saw Lynch and the prisoner—Guinn was at the back doing some whitewashing—he was not close to me—Lynch asked me to fetch the keys, and I did so, and returned with them—I heard the prisoner say to Lynch that he did not know what to do with his goods—Lynch said, "I have got a shop and parlour empty; you can have it for 10s. a week till your back premises are repaired from the fire"—the prisoner said nothing, but took the keys in my presence—Lynch opened the door in the gateway and went into the shop with the prisoner—I waited outside, and saw them very soon after come out together; the prisoner had the keys then in his hand—I cleaned up the premises when the prisoner left; there were no goods there then—I had not been in for a long time before 5th December, because it was empty—you could only see in through the back window; the front shutters were never taken down—I saw Hoare and Clifton Smith at the Police-court; I had never seen them before, to the best of my knowledge—while the prisoner was at the shop and parlour I saw goods going in several times—they were generally brought on a barrow—I have seen one or two of the prisoner's men occasionally; there have been several in the shop and parlour, taking in the stock—all the bags carried in have been marked "W. Austin"—they went into the shop and parlour by the side entrance; I don't remember the front door being opened—the prisoner has not been in there more than four or five times, to the best of my recollection—I have seen him at the beginning and end of the week at mid-day—I have seen him go in and come out—I have not seen him there more than six times between December 6th and February 20th—I have seen him there when the men were putting goods in; he has not stopped long; I have not heard him say anything—I never heard him give orders—I got Mrs. Pyebus, who helps me, to get three or five lemons at a time from him—I stood at the door and saw her—the prisoner was there eleven weeks, and after he left I cleaned the premises; Mrs. Pyebus helped me—I found this bag, marked "W. Austin, Covent Garden"—on one occasion in the market Lynch went for his rent and could not get it, and he asked the prisoner and the prisoner gave the two keys to him on a string over the desk—a young man was then on the left-hand side of the desk—I did not hear what was said—he gave the keys into Lynch's hand—I did not notice where he took them from—I afterwards saw those keys; one belonged to the shop door and the other to the parlour door, and were the keys I had given Lynch to give to the prisoner—Lynch frequently went to the prisoner for the rent after that—when the first action came on in the County Court I was there, but was not called—Lynch did not know I was there—I was just outside—I went because Lynch had a case against Sullivan, and I went to hear that case—I had nothing to do with the action against Sullivan, I went to hear it—I did not tell Lynch I was going—he told me he had a case at the County Court that day, and I thought it was Sullivan's case; he did not tell me the name of the person, and I did not ask him then—I knew he had an action against Sullivan for £10, and I did not know this case was coming off—Lynch said the action was to be tried at St. Martin's Lane—he did not mention that I might look in—he said he was going there—the conversation took place in my room at Drury Lane; he came there to collect my rent—he said he had an action against Sullivan and I thought he was going for that—he did not tell me he had an action against the

prisoner—Sullivan had been a tenant who had gone—I usually knew about tenants, what they owed and so on—he said nothing about bringing an action against anybody except Sullivan—he got judgment that day against Sullivan for £10; it has not yet been paid—I was a witness in the second action—I heard the prisoner deny that he occupied the shop and parlour, and he said he never had the keys—I don't remember what he said about the keys at the County Court—he said I and Lynch occupied the shop and parlour, and that Clifton Smith occupied the premises.

Cross-examined. I never lived at 66; the prisoner said I did, and also that Clifton Smith occupied it—I think I am sure about it—I was examined before the Magistrate (MR. MATHEWS read to the witness from her deposition "I did not hear Austin say anything about me in connection with those premises") the prisoner did not say in Court that Clifton Smith occupied the premises; he said it outside the Police-court—I was occupying the shop and parlour at 65, Drury Lane—I am caretaker—I. did not hear the prisoner say at the County Court, when giving evidence, that I and Lynch occupied these premises—he said it outside the Court door, not in Court—it is quite a mistake to say I said at the Police-court, speaking of what the prisoner had sworn, "I did not hear. Austin say any thing about Lynch in connection with the occupation of the premises"—it was not my mistake—I do not know that I said that—if I said it, I could not have heard it—I signed my deposition——in December, 1891, I was in occupation of the shop and parlour at 65, Drury Lane, and Lynch came weekly to collect my rent, 6s. a week—I paid on Saturday, or Thursday, or Monday sometimes—he kept a rent book—I cannot say what he put down in it—I don't know if he had a book where he wrote down what he received—I cannot point out in this book the entry of any payment made by me—Mr. Lynch pays me 10s. a week for looking after the place, and he makes me a reduction, of course—sometimes he would deduct the rent, and sometimes I would give it to him—sometimes I am called Mrs. Lynch—I have gone down with the keys, and they have said, "Here comes Mrs. Lynch," but my name is Mrs. Beach—after the first action Lynch spoke to me, and then I was called as a witness on the second action—the County Court Judge decided against my evidence—I and Lynch were the only two witnesses called then—I have seen more than one of the prisoner's men going into the shop And parlour, and I saw bags with the prisoner's name on, bananas, oranges, and lemons taken in—the men were strangers, some one day, some another—I saw the prisoner take the goods in—I said before I could not be sure about the men—I said before, "I know several of Austin's men by sight; I cannot swear it was Austin's men I saw take in the baskets"—I know they took Mr. Austin's goods in—I only know the men by bringing the prisoner's goods—I said to the Magistrate that I could hot swear to the men—I found this bag on a shelf in the shop when I cleaned up, and gave it to Mrs. Pybus, who helped me—she used not to wear this bag as an apron when she cleaned the premises out—this was the only one—I don't know if the prisoner kept a number of such bags in the warehouse where he stored his goods; I was never there—the prisoner occupied premises at the back before the fire, and placed fruit there; and afterwards he was there dealing in the same class of goods—he gave up the shop and parlour, and went back to the warehouse—I heard nothing

said in the, market when the keys were given up—the prisoner had the keys of the warehouse at the back—I had nothing to do with that when it was being restored after the fire—the keys of the warehouse were not given back to the prisoner in my presence after the reinstatement—I saw the keys of the shop and parlour.

By the COURT. I got 10s. a week for looking after the offices and warehouses, and I paid 6s., a week for my room, so that I received 4s. from Lynch—he would pay me 10s., and I gave him 6s.—I have only been three times to the Westminster County Court—I thought I should like to hear Sullivan's case—Lynch told me he had an action there, and I thought it was Sullivan's case, and went to hear it—Lynch was collecting his rent, and several people were there, and he said, "I may be late in going to the Court," and my idea was that it was Sullivan's case.

  JOHN SHARP . I am an assistant to Messrs. Eames and Rolfe, of Covent Garden Market—I live at 23, Goldsmith's Buildings, Holborn—in December, 1891, Ernest Rolfe had premises at 66, Drury Lane, on the left hand side of the archway, very nearly opposite the shop and parlour on the right hand side—about Christmas, 1891,1 noticed boxes and bags in that shop—I knew the prisoner, and I knew one of his men by sight; I have seen that man in and out of the shop, and have helped him with goods which he was taking out of the shop and parlour on to a barrow—I asked him who he was, and he told me—I have seen the prisoner in and out of the shop and parlour on several occasions, about a week, fortnight, or month after the fire—it was at the end of the week I generally saw him.

Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate, "A few weeks before Christmas, 1891, I saw in the shop and parlour at 66, Drury Lane, some cases of oranges, nuts, and lemons"—I did not notice any names on the bags—on one or two occasions I saw the prisoner himself about that time going in and out of the shop; it is sixteen or eighteen months since I saw him go into the shop and parlour—the prisoner was not in occupation of the shop and parlour before the fire, I am quite sure—I said at the Police court the prisoner was in possession of the shop and parlour both before and after the fire; I made a mistake—I saw him in the shop and parlour, after, and not before the fire—I saw him up and down the court before the fire—I did not think he was in possession of the shop and parlour before the fire—I said at the Police-court, "He was in possession of the shop and parlour for about five months after the fire"—that would be down to the end of April, 1892—I think he was there to the end of April, as near as I can say.

Re-examined. He was not in possession of the shop and parlour before the fire—I never saw Clifton Smith or Hoare there.

  GEORGE EAMES . In December, 1891,1 occupied as manager the basement to the left of the archway, at 66, Drury Lane—I think the shop and parlour opposite to me in the gateway were not occupied—I cannot say positively—about that time I had an interview with Lynch about that shop and parlour, and the consequence was that Mr. Bonomy, for whom I managed, did not have the shop and parlour—a short time after the fire I saw some oranges, lemons, and other goods in the shop and parlour, the same kind of goods that the prisoner deals in—I was in the market most of the time, and was not at 66 many hours in the day—I should

be there after four o'clock, and before post time—I never saw Clifton Smith or Hoare there, that I remember.

Cross-examined. I never saw the prisoner there—I saw him in the market between December, 1891, and February, 1892; he has a stand there I believe—I have known him for some time, and I believe he is well known—he has carried on business in the market for a great many years, and enjoys the confidence and respect of his friends—I told the Magistrate I could not say anything about his having any goods or anything in the shop and parlour.

  CHARLES GUINN . I live at 45, Preston Road, Kentish Town, and am a small builder and general workman—in the first week in December, 1891, I was working for Mr. Lynch at these premises—on 5th December Lynch paid me my wages—several people were clearing away the stock, and the prisoner was helping to do so—I left him and Lynch together in the yard with two or three gentlemen—Lynch told me to get the keys, and I went to Mrs. Beech and came back—I did not remain more than five minutes after that, and then I bade Lynch good day and went away.

  MARGARET PYBUS . I am the wife of James Pybus, and live at 64, Drury Lane, and help Mrs. Beach to clean the premises—before the fire, on December 3rd, the shop and parlour at 66 were unoccupied, and there was nothing in them—about Christmas time I saw lemons go in baskets several times—I have seen several of the prisoner's men in the shop and parlour unloading and taking the lemons in, and unpacking goods, and they used to come in the morning and get baskets and things—I noticed no names on baskets or barrows—I have asked them to give me and Mrs. Beach lemons and oranges, and sometimes the men, and sometimes the prisoner, have given me two or three—he has taken them from the little shop and parlour under the archway—I very seldom saw the prisoner there when they were unloading; but when he was there he was seeing that things were put properly into the place—he had lemons in the warehouse he occupied for some time—I have had lemons from him before the fire; but after the fire I had them from the shop and parlour—after the prisoner left the premises I helped Mrs. Beach to clean them up, and I found a lot of empty baskets, and a sack was on the shelf in the shop—I put the rubbish into the sack—Mrs. Beach found the sack, and she said I could have it.

Cross-examined. I did not say when I was examined about it that I found it in the parlour—I did not say at the Police-court, "I have had that bag since last September twelve months"—I said there were bags left in there which they gave us to put across our aprons, with no names on them—this was not a walnut bag—it is a perfectly sound bag—I did not think the prisoner would want it, and Mrs. Beach said I could keep it to use when I helped her to scrub—I did not use it as an apron in cleaning out the shop and parlour—I considered it was cleaning when I put the rubbish in it—the prisoner had the warehouse at the back up to the fire, and he went back there a very short time after the fire; and during that time he would have boxes and baskets of oranges and lemons delivered there.

Re-examined. I am not quite clear when the bag was found on the shelf; it was when we were doing walnuts in the shed—I was there at

the time—we were cleaning the shop and parlour when Mrs. Beach found a bag.

  FREDERICK LEACH . I live at 56, Frederick Street, Caledonian Road, and am a commercial traveller—on 15th February, 1893, I was at the Westminster County Court when the case of Lynch and Austin was heard—after Mr. Marriott had pressed him three times the prisoner denied on oath that he had ever had in his possession the keys of the place in Drury Lane, and he said that Clifton Smith had taken the place.

Cross-examined. I was not interested in the case; I was waiting to see Mr. Marriott, and listened to what went on—I heard Lynch say he had received a cheque for £2 18s. 6d.—the Judge asked him how he accounted for having received the 3s. 6d. on account, and his answer was something about a cheque, but several cheques were mentioned—the 38. 6d. was said to be on account of the premises in Drury Lane—I could not swear to the amount from which it was deducted—I said before the Magistrate, "I understood the 3s. 6d. was upon the £2 18s. 6d."—I did understand so, and I say so now, but I would not take my oath upon it—to the best of my belief the 3s. 6d. was part of the £2 18s. 6d. cheque, and was in excess of what was required.

Re-examined. The cheques were jumbled up—I was paying no particular attention to the case.

  FREDERICK MARRIOTT . I am a solicitor, practising at 86, St. Martin's Lane—I acted as Lynch's solicitor in the second of these actions—on 15th February I conducted the case—I made this note of the prisoner's evidence for the purpose of cross-examination, and these are the exact words he used: "I did not occupy the premises; Mrs. Beech and Mr. Lynch occupied them themselves during that time. I took a man named Smith to Lynch about the premises. Smith took the premises"—the prisoner denied having had the keys handed to him by Lynch.

Cross-examined. I took a note of the case as Lynch's solicitor.

  ISAAC JACOBS (201 C). At 11. 30 on 22nd February I saw the prisoner in Covent Garden market, where he was carrying on his business, and arrested him on a warrant charging him with perjury—after I explained that I had a warrant for him he said, "I thought this could have been done by a summons. I have won two actions in the County Court; one before Christmas and one afterwards"—I was in plain clothes—I took him through the streets to Marlborough Street, where he was detained.

Cross-examined. I think next day Mr. Hannay said that he was under the impression when he granted a warrant that the man was going to run away, and he asked me where I arrested him—the prisoner was allowed out on his father's bail in £50 when Mr. Hannay heard he was carrying on business—he was detained a short time in the cells till his friends could be communicated with and bail found—next day the case came on for hearing.

This being the conclusion of the case or the prosecution, the JURY, without calling upon the defence, stated that they considered there was not sufficient evidence to establish the case.

NOT GUILTY .